HOOSIERS?

[ttweed]

Recognizing that the treadwear ratings are arbitrary at best, we may still solve this 'problem' by defining the points thusly:
140+ = 0 points
50-139 = 3 points
<50 = 9 points
race (or non-DOT) = 12

I'm sorry, I have been holding back to let other people get their opinions in on this thread, but this is the craziest, most poorly thought out suggestion I have heard so far. In order to solve some perceived problem with running fast tires in Stock class, you are going to impact everyone who has optimized their car for P, I, M, and AR classes by assigning a totally inappropriate value to any tire less than 50 treadwear. Do you know how many people throughout the Zone would be bumped up a class by this seemingly simple rule change? Talk about rules instability, this is a perfect example of well-intended changes that have far-reaching and unintended consequences. I have seen enough of that in this club to last me a lifetime already. If you want everyone in Stock to drive on Toyos, or to use tires > 140, then just spell that out. Please do not make far-reaching changes that will effect every single class of car over this issue. You guys can go slower if you want, but don't push that on others in the name of "spirit of stock class" or anything else, please!

TT

[Irksome]

Recognizing that the treadwear ratings are arbitrary at best, we may still solve this 'problem' by defining the points thusly:
140+ = 0 points
50-139 = 3 points
<50 = 9 points
race (or non-DOT) = 12

I'm sorry, I have been holding back to let other people get their opinions in on this thread, but this is the craziest, most poorly thought out suggestion I have heard so far.

Don't sugar-coat it, Tom, tell me what you REALLY think!

Arguing that a suggestion is wrong simply and only because of the impact would be to change either what choices people make in existing classes or what class they would end up in is simply inertia. I'm fine with disagreement with the merits of my proposal, but ANY change in rules will affect existing people in existing classes. Heck, look at the car that runs every autocross with the class designation of PS painted on--he's now in QS, and the impact to him did not stop the creation of the Q class because the Q class made sense.

I don't know what the correct point values for different tires should be. But I do personally believe that the values for the sticky tires is currently too low. If, in the absence of existing cars, or the absence of monetary constraints, virtually every competitor would choose 6 points in tires over 6 points in anything else, then that indicates that the 6 points for tires is a bigger 'bang for points' than anything else.

Perhaps my numbers are off, but do you honestly believe that the point values for tires stacks up correctly against the other modifications?

[Dan Chambers]

I'm sorry, I have been holding back to let other people get their opinions in on this thread, but this is the craziest, most poorly thought out suggestion I have heard so far.

Wow! Tom ol' buddy, is it really fair to say it this way? Perhaps, could you have said you don't agree? I'm not sure anyone on this thread has the right to critisize other's opinion in this manner. "Crazy, poorly thought out?" Did you really mean to assault anyone or their ideas, good buddy? Perhaps your opinions are expressed here, but maybe we should not discourage the thought processes of others simply because we don't happen to agree.

In order to solve some perceived problem with running fast tires in Stock class, you are going to impact everyone who has optimized their car for P, I, M, and AR classes by assigning a totally inappropriate value to any tire less than 50 treadwear. Do you know how many people throughout the Zone would be bumped up a class by this seemingly simple rule change?

Didn't this very thing just happen in repsect to factory optioned aero packages? I think it did. Yet, we've learned to live with the changes. the way I see it, rules changes proposed by others are mearly an effort to level the playing field and close the loop-holes. If the Presidents and the Rules Committee believe that a proposed change has negative far-reaching effects, won't they simply vote the proposal down? Isn't that their responsibility?

I don't think any one person has the authority to detrmine what is or isn't an appropriate change. I don't. The Zone 8 Rules Committee Chair doesn't. The Zone 8 Rep doesn't. It is voted on by the Presidents of all the regions in the zone after review by the rules committee. Let them argue what is fair, far-reaching, and positive or negative to the members. We've elected them, in part, for just that reason. I say propose what you want: tire regulations, earo kit regulations, ride height regulations, color regulations ... whatever you want. Then: rally your cause and let the Rules Committee and the review process and the President's vote determine the outcome. No single person has the right to determine what is and isn't good, just, fair, and/or in the spirit of a class. I whole-heartily encourage free thought and initiation in proposing changes that you think are worthy of review. Everyone: go for it!

Talk about rules instability, this is a perfect example of well-intended changes that have far-reaching and unintended consequences.

In your opinion?

I think this happens all the time.

I have seen enough of that in this club to last me a lifetime already. If you want everyone in Stock to drive on Toyos, or to use tires > 140, then just spell that out. Please do not make far-reaching changes that will effect every single class of car over this issue.

But, this happens all the time. Why stop the process now?

You guys can go slower if you want, but don't push that on others in the name of "spirit of stock class" or anything else, please!

TT

And in all fairness, Tom ... don't push your personal interests on everyone else, either.

Tom: while I appreciate your interests in keeping things "sane" and in control, I can't help feeling concerned that you are trying to press your individual values and interests on others. I'm hoping a I'm wrong and I'm misunderstanding your message. But the language you present causes me a little concern. Just my obersvations. I'm not attacking you, Tom. I'm just making my observations known.

I'm sure in the end, the Rules Committee and the Presidents of the Regions will see fit to do the right thing.

[993Panzer]

I'm sure in the end, the Rules Committee and the Presidents of the Regions will see fit to do the right thing.

Before the Rules Committee and Presidents can take action someone needs to present to the Rules Committe a proposal. Do you have one? Irksome has one that will effect every class in the club except S/S. I thought we were only talking about the "stock" class. make a proposal that effects the stock classes, not everyone. It's fine to have an opinion but you need to see the big picture and realize the scope of the problem and propsed solution. I agree with Tom to a degree. Irksome's proposal is like having an armed maniac hold up in a house. One good sniper shoot could fix the situation. Irksome's proposal would be to nuke the place. I hope you see my point. Scope of the problem and solution need to match.

[Jad]

I actually argree with Irksome. True, it affects everyone, but the current rule is just wrong. It needs to be fixed ONCE, and then not changed. We should not chase current tires, but the current point system for tires is ridiculous and has been for too long.

The other loophole in the rules is for turbos, but no one has utilized that loophole. Boost is 7 points. No matter how much boost. You can run a 1000 hp car for 7 points. It would be expensive to keep together, and hasn't been a problem yet, but could be. If every class starts to get dominated by turbos, or added turbos, I bet the rules would change quickly, even though it would affect everyone. Some rules are just wrong for everyone, even though it is more apparent is some classes than others.

Just try to run even an F1 car on Sears roadhandler tires and tell me other factors are just as important. You can go fast being limited on anything else, weight overcomes HP limitations, sway bars can be overcome by springs and shocks, limited slips easily adjusted away, but without traction, you will not go fast, with traction, you can, any car, any class. Did you see Top Gear, F1 car vs Chevy Cobalt? It was about a tie as they were racing inside and there was no traction.

[Dan Chambers]

I'm sure in the end, the Rules Committee and the Presidents of the Regions will see fit to do the right thing.

Before the Rules Committee and Presidents can take action someone needs to present to the Rules Committe a proposal. Do you have one? Irksome has one that will effect every class in the club except S/S. I thought we were only talking about the "stock" class. make a proposal that effects the stock classes, not everyone. It's fine to have an opinion but you need to see the big picture and realize the scope of the problem and propsed solution. I agree with Tom to a degree. Irksome's proposal is like having an armed maniac hold up in a house. One good sniper shoot could fix the situation. Irksome's proposal would be to nuke the place. I hope you see my point. Scope of the problem and solution need to match.

Agreed. I do see your point. Matching problems and solutions is a very trusted method, and has worked in the past. Perhaps a review of Greg P.'s idea about the >140 tread wear in Stock Class is more fitting. I think an amendment to the rules for Stock Class, as a specific class, to restrict traction/treadwear could be a viable alternative to Irksomes's idea. So, yes ... you could say there is a potential proposal in the works. If Greg doesn't actually write the proposal, maybe someone else will?

Regardless of the proposals and their language, communication to the Rules Committee and the Regional Presidents is paramount to how the decisions will be made.

Again, I encourage thinking out loud. Maybe Irksomes's proposal is not what others think will work. Fine. Part of the review process is allowing comments (comments regarding proposals can be made during the proposal period, right?) regarding proposals to be stated and viewed by the Rules Committee and the Presidents prior to votng on the proposal. If Irksome's proposal isn't viewed as sound, it would be voted down, no?

But let's not discourage the free-flow of ideas. There is always room for improvement, isn't there?

[ttweed]

I'm not sure anyone on this thread has the right to critisize other's opinion in this manner. "Crazy, poorly thought out?" Did you really mean to assault anyone or their ideas, good buddy?

That's your interpretation, Dan. I am simply expressing my opinion, as you suggested everyone do, in the strongest possible way. Because I didn't suger-coat it, don't be condescending and call it an attack. These are words in the ether, here, not weapons, and every one I expressed is true, like it or not, polite or not. It was strong, but it was certainly not "hate speech" or profane.

Sorry for being blunt about it, Tom M., but a suggestion to solve a problem in Stock class that would impact every other class negatively is out of whack, plain and simple. As David said, you are "nuking a molehill to level the playing field," and leaving behind a smoking crater.

And in all fairness, Tom ... don't push your personal interests on everyone else, either.

What personal interest am I pushing here, Dan? I called it like it is--a nutty proposal. I can assure you I am not the only one who thinks so. Sorry I wasn't diplomatic enough for you. Whose interests are really being served by this push for tire limitations, anyway? I don't even run in stock class. You do.

It is true that the penalty for tires is not in parity with other penalties for improvements. We have known that for a long time, and I have pointed it out myself in the past, but 9 points for Hoosiers or V710s? That is equal to a 40HP engine swap and 2 points more than adding forced induction.

TT

[ttweed]

...the current point system for tires is ridiculous and has been for too long.

It is precisely because it has stood for so long that changing it now would be a drastic measure. Too many people have optimized their cars within a point or two of the maximum allowed in the class. Increasing the penalty for sticky tires would cause a LOT of people to have to decontent their cars, give up their current tires, or move up in class and be uncompetitive without massive further improvements. Ridiculous or not, this is the kind of rules instability that can cause a lot of grief and expense for a lot of people. The only way this wouldn't cause major consternation and upheaval is if the total point limits for each class of improvement are raised by the same increment that the tire point penalties are raised, so as not to bump people up in class. A separate rule for Stock class tire limitations, if that is what is desired, would not have such widespread, disruptive effects.

If every class starts to get dominated by turbos, or added turbos, I bet the rules would change quickly, even though it would affect everyone.

No, closing a loophole like that would only affect those who had added turbos to take advantage of it, which no one has, as you mentioned. Changing rules for sticky tires is a whole different ballgame, as many people use them and have for years. Right now it is the same for everyone, even if the penalty does not equal the performance improvement, and almost everyone outside of the S/S class is using sticky tires.

Just my opinion,
TT

[gulf911]

Dan,
A couple of points here: The term Stock generally means no modifications. Agreed? I don't think thats an interpretation but a definition.

Should I have gone to the rules committee and complained because guys were running slicks in AM? They were within the points and legal to do so. That was a much larger disparage than what you are complaining about. Oh, you say well AM is a modified class? So is Stock. We are not talking street stock. Honestly, You are complaining because someone spent the points better than you. Now we are supposed to look at the cars and say man Pauls car 'looks' like a race car?? What now, do we need additional points for asthetics? Stock is a 'modified' class over street stock, you have 8 points, use them as you see fit. So far, I see no actual good reason for not allowing R compound tires in Stock ( modified street stock). I don't get it, restrict R compound from Stock, so now you are running on the same tires and you both have put 8 points into your car. how is that different than a class that allows R compound and you both run Hoosiers? This scenario could be replayed over any modified class.
I can't compete with raised spindles in AM but it is allowed in points , so lets change the rules?. Where do we stop?
Saftey issues because of R compound? Are you kidding? IMHO thats reaching a bit.
I have to ask you, if someone gave you Hoosiers for the year would we be having this conversation?

[Dan Chambers]

Dan,
A couple of points here: The term Stock generally means no modifications. Agreed?

No. S/S is an unmodified class IMO. I think Stock begins the slippery slope: torsion bars, adjustable sway bars, removal of Cat's, lightening, removal of interior parts, sticky tires, etc., etc. No. Stock is not unmodified in my view.

I don't think thats an interpretation but a definition.

I'll politely disagree (see how that's done, Tom?)

Should I have gone to the rules committee and complained because guys were running slicks in AM?

You could have. The rules do allow for that. You could have changed that with the strock of a pen and good lobbying efforts.

They were within the points and legal to do so.

yes. And ... you could have changed that.

That was a much larger disparage than what you are complaining about.

Again ... I am not complaining! I am simply asking the question: do sticky race tires belong in Stock class? This is not a complaint. This is a question of symantics. What is "Race?" What is "Stock?"

Oh, you say well AM is a modified class? So is Stock.

Wait: earlier you said Stock was not modified: and I quote-

Dan,
A couple of points here: The term Stock generally means no modifications. Agreed?

Is it me? What am I missing?

We are not talking street stock. Honestly, You are complaining because someone spent the points better than you.

We are not talking Street Stock. Agreed. And again .... I'm not comp .... oh, forget it!

Now we are supposed to look at the cars and say man Pauls car 'looks' like a race car?? What now, do we need additional points for asthetics?

Sure! Why not? It's just a rule. Again: rules can be written, reviewed, and voted in or out by the Rules Committee and the Regional Presidents. Write whatever you want and lobby for it.

Stock is a 'modified' class over street stock, you have 8 points, use them as you see fit.

Gosh, I'm confused. Is stock modified or unmodified?

Dan,
A couple of points here: The term Stock generally means no modifications. Agreed?

Here we are again.

So far, I see no actual good reason for not allowing R compound tires in Stock ( modified street stock). I don't get it, restrict R compound from Stock, so now you are running on the same tires and you both have put 8 points into your car. how is that different than a class that allows R compound and you both run Hoosiers? This scenario could be replayed over any modified class.
I can't compete with raised spindles in AM but it is allowed in points , so lets change the rules?. Where do we stop?
Saftey issues because of R compound? Are you kidding? IMHO thats reaching a bit.

Fair enough. Everyone's opinion counts. You raise very valid points, and you do it politely.

I have to ask you, if someone gave you Hoosiers for the year would we be having this conversation?

Fact is I get my tires paid for through Ballast Point: any tire I want. Any tire. I don't run Hoosiers. They are not a Stock tire. I could if I wanted to. I don't. It is theoretically and philosophically inappropriate to me to run race tires in a Stock class, IMHO. But, that's just me.

I'm not complaining, though. I'm not. Paul can run whatever he wants. I'm not complaining. I'm raising the challenge of a symantic and philosophical issue. I'm not complaining. Remember: on any given day, I can still win against Paul and his Hoosiers. I've done it twice. Who knows, I might just beat him again. That's not the point. Point is: I'm not complaining. Should Race Tires be allowed in Stock Class? That is the question.

Now that we've heard from those in higher class groups, what do the Stock class drivers think? Are there any Stock drivers willing to take a stab at this issue? Come on. Don't be shy.

[Dan Chambers]

That's your interpretation, Dan. I am simply expressing my opinion, as you suggested everyone do, in the strongest possible way. Because I didn't suger-coat it, don't be condescending and call it an attack. These are words in the ether, here, not weapons, and every one I expressed is true, like it or not, polite or not. It was strong, but it was certainly not "hate speech" or profane.

See, Tom. This is why it's difficult to pen stuff like this rather than talk to you face to face. Now, you are calling me a name: "condescending." That's an insult. I resent that. You could have simply said you disagree with me. "...every one I expressed is true?" Is that a fact or an opinion? Who's to say what is the truth?

I will now choose not to reply to any of your posts, Tom. I'm not calling anyone anything here. I prefere a more diplomatic approach. As I see it, you have a different approach.

Have a Nice Day.

[Jad]

...the current point system for tires is ridiculous and has been for too long.

It is precisely because it has stood for so long that changing it now would be a drastic measure. Too many people have optimized their cars within a point or two of the maximum allowed in the class. Increasing the penalty for sticky tires would cause a LOT of people to have to decontent their cars, give up their current tires, or move up in class and be uncompetitive without massive further improvements. TT

Tom, that 'sounds' valid, but I can only think of 1 person running non-DOT tires and maybe 10 who run Hoosiers/710. Of those, many, if not most, are in the middle of the class so a few points won't change a thing for them. Toyo's are now 1 point more, so ONLY those running Toyo's that are maxed out will be effected. My guess is 10 cars TOPS. That does not really seem all that dramatic to fix a major flaw in the points system. I am not saying that is the absolute fix, but it is certainly worthy of thought and discussion, not a completely groundless, ridiculous suggestion that will cause havic for everyone.

[gulf911]

"Wait: earlier you said Stock was not modified: and I quote-gulf911 wrote:
Dan,
A couple of points here: The term Stock generally means no modifications. Agreed?
Is it me? What am I missing?"



You are missing the point and my meaning...

Don't confuse the 'term' Stock with Stock 'class', as in 1 step above Street Stock?...capiche? When I said Stock is a modified "class" thats what it meant, you are allowed x modifications above Street Stock. Did I have to spell out that I was reffering to PCA "Stock" class as in GS, FS, PS etc? rather than the term Stock? Nevermind , you know what I meant.

" It is theoretically and philosophically inappropriate to me to run race tires in a Stock class, IMHO. But, that's just me."

Gee Dan, If thats the case, and you are so stuck on the term Stock, why do you have any modifications at all in a Stock class?

I thought I had heard it all until now, you can run Hoosiers for free in a class that allows them legally, but its against your religion to run them in a class with the word Stock in it? My apologies Dan, truly, and I mean it sincerely, no offense at all meant, but that is the most rediculous, cut my nose off to spite my face, stance I have ever heard. your opinion may differ however... Haven't you heard of "when in Rome"?

Honestly, If Ballast has any sponsorship openings, I am available, and yes I will be running 710's...

And yes, I do have scruples....just no budget for 710's....

[SDGT3]

[quote="Dan Chambers"

Now that we've heard from those in higher class groups, what do the Stock class drivers think? Are there any Stock drivers willing to take a stab at this issue? Come on. Don't be shy.[/quote]

Man I really, REALLY didn't want to get into this discussion, because

1. I'm new to the club and don't want to rock the boat

2. I'm here to have fun with no Formula 1 contract after the season if I win my particular "Stock" class and really don't want to go around examining my competitors cars for points and report back to the rules committee on my findings. It's not what I drive to the track for on weekends.

But here goes... Disclaimer: This is my opinion and only mine and is not intended to offend anyone, including, but not limited to my fellow club members, class competitors or rules committee members.

In my car and karting experience, there are 4 types or classes/tiers of tires.
a. Street tires

b. R comps that you could drive on the street everyday and to and from tracks such as Buttonwillow without even being concerned about safety issues/punctures, etc.

c. Strictly focused competition tires such as Hoosiers A6/R6, Kumho V710.

d. Race slicks

I was pretty much shocked to see that Hoosiers/710s were allowed in the stock classes. I understand the points system and as a person who has a bone stock car with the exception of safety equipment and a compromise street/track alignment (because I drive to and from the tracks rather than tow) it just doesn't "seem" right to have the "stock" classes where you can bolt on super sticky tires at the track. I can see where some will argue that this is not "in the spirit" of stock.

The argument of "showroom stock" cars now have 80 treadware tires is true only in the "Q" class. The Michelin Sport Pilot Cups that the 997 GT2/GT3's come in are a good example of that 2nd tier of tires I mentioned above. Those indivdiuals have no choice but to be in stock class rather than S/S, but could go into S/S with the purchase of PS2's or other street tire.

If I had a vote, I'd vote for the "Stock" classes to not be allowed to run a tire below the 80 treadwear designation which would exclude the 3rd and 4th tier of tires including the Hoosier and 710s. I also understand that the treadwear ratings can be somewhat arbitratry, but I believe the A6/R6 and 710's are such a serious competitive tire that the 4 points allotted to it are relatively low.

Just my .02

Peter Busalacchi

[Dan Chambers]

Gee Dan, If thats the case, and you are so stuck on the term Stock, why do you have any modifications at all in a Stock class?

The original plan was to run S/S in the SC. However, I had a terrible cooling problem partly due to a Catalytic Converter issue. After removing the Cat., the car ran cooler, which was really important for a shared stree/tracking car.

The original plan was to upgrade struts in the front (the rears being already replaced), and drive the car in S/S. Period. Unfortunately, pulling the cat to keep the engine cooler puts me into Stock class, according to the rules. Thus the dilema: run the cat and burn the engine, or bump to Stock class.

Since we all know that running a no-points car (or say two points for tires like 200 treadwear only) in stock class where everyone else is maximizing to 7 or 8 points would be foolish, I opted to upgrade the torsion bars, too. Since I'm taking points .... well you know the rest. You've been there.

So, long story short, I'd be in S/S class if I could run with a cooler-engined car sans Cat. But I can't. So, I take the 7-points for torsions, tires, aero, and strut brace, and enjoy competing with those optimized with other goodies. Yes, I could pull the strut brace, pull the aerokit, and run 225/245 Hoosiers or V710's. But .... well I won't say it.

As for Ballast Point .... good luck, Dan. The problem you might have: They like to support winners.